Olivier:
Olivier-10 wrote:
>
> ... [kilometers-long introduction omitted] ...
>
> Now, I'm concerned about the following points, which I would really like
> that you, fine Classical Editors, sort out:
>
> 1. Your documentation *sucks* big time. Not because you haven't thought
> (or discussed
leivhe wrote:
>
> Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> ...
>> If I gave you just one, you'd assume I cherry picked it. Here's a
>> dozen or so, just pulling from the first 30 on my "messy releases
>> list".
>
>> http://musicbrainz.org/show/release/?releaseid=57554
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-R
2008/2/27, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Olivier-10 wrote:
> >
> > Any WikiGod around with some answers? :-]
> >
> > What to do with CategoryTerminology?
> > It has grown up to the point it's pretty unmanageable.
>
> >
> >
>
> Even as a WikiJanitor :-) , I can see that it's har
Olivier:
Olivier-10 wrote:
>
> Any WikiGod around with some answers? :-]
>
> What to do with CategoryTerminology?
> It has grown up to the point it's pretty unmanageable.
>
>
Even as a WikiJanitor :-) , I can see that it's hard to look at the list of
pages in this category right now. T
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Brian Schweitzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I quite understand why the page name change would need an
> RFV - the page itself is still a proposal, not an official
> guideline...
It didn't, and wasn't RFV'ed, and was renamed over a week ago.
> A
Olivier:
Great job! Support.
And, I was bold and fixed a spelling error in one of your headings. The
change log will tell you where.
Olivier-10 wrote:
>
> + alternative titles for tracks
>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=9&rev1=8
>
> Sorry for the spam :]
Kuno Woudt-2 wrote:
>
> So, I propose to split [ConsistentOriginalData] into two new pages, and
> throw away
> the current name to avoid any further confusion.
>
Support.
Kuno Woudt-2 wrote:
>
> The two new pages would be:
>
>
> ConsistentOfficialData
>
> "If, something is consistently
On 27-Feb-08, at 1:00 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on
your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have
to
include the WorkName in the TrackTitles"
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
include the WorkName in the TrackTitles".
In my opinion, this wouldn't work
You might be
2008/2/27, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I don't think we're starting from scratch really.
Quoting Brian:
"the existing CSG docs are completely unreadable bork; that's why I'd
gone from the standpoint of new doc, not fix old doc."
That's pretty much from scratch.
> Basically taking
> wh
> > You might be right, but you're not explaining why it won't. What do
> > you lose if the WorkName is not in the TrackTitle? Choose your own
> > examples and show why we would want to avoid it :)
>
> It won't work right now because the context for the track title "I.
> Allegro" will be ambig
On 26-Feb-08, at 11:47 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
If we can agree on this first chunk, let's move on to the next.
What do you think about doing it this way, Brian?
-Aaron
Sure; only reason I'd avoid doing it that way was to avoid a flood
of RFCs. :)
I'd would *much* rather wade through
> If we can agree on this first chunk, let's move on to the next.
>
> What do you think about doing it this way, Brian?
>
> -Aaron
Sure; only reason I'd avoid doing it that way was to avoid a flood of RFCs. :)
Brian
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing li
On 26-Feb-08, at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 7:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on
your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle
On 26-Feb-08, at 8:26 PM, Olivier wrote:
Errr, since you said we "agreed on all", did you actually read that
sentence?
"in any case, there is no need to answer that mail at all."
:-]
2008/2/27, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
just dump it in a big pile called "historical" to rot. I
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > In my opinion, this wouldn't work
>
> You might be right, but you're not explaining why it won't. What do you
> lose if the WorkName is not in the TrackTitle? Choose your own examples
> and show why
Errr, since you said we "agreed on all", did you actually read that sentence?
"in any case, there is no need to answer that mail at all."
:-]
2008/2/27, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> just dump it in a big pile called "historical" to rot. I fully agree,
> the existing CSG docs are c
> > I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "Japanese release", though. Do you
> > mean "Japanese-language release, where ReleaseTitle and TrackTitles have
> > some English language text mixed in with Japanese language text", or
> > "releases intended primarily for the Japan market, which have
> Of course not, noone suggested it. When I see someone have entered
> something in English that I'd have done in German, I don't add a new
> one, it's not worth the trouble.
>
> Another thought though: As things are more and more being made available
> online, I think we will see a standardis
Thanks for the laugh :D
I must say, I agree with just about all you said, up until we get to
the part that's going on right about now.
A lot of what you said I think echos what I first said 2 months ago,
when I began this entire discussion. I have been trying to come up
with documentation that w
Dear Classical Oriented Editors,
I have a widely spread reputation of lambasting Classical Editors
every time I got a chance to (mainly for them being loosy pedantic
editors, lazy on the researches, slacky on the styleguides when they
are not labeled CSG, more kind to chitchat till the end of the
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> I guess that leads to a question what is normalized and what is not? Is
> changing "Piano Concerto", "Klavierkonzert" or "Klavírny koncert" to
> "Concerto for Piano" really just normalization? Why should we prefer the
> English title on a German release?
The proble
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > classical editors - we tend to actually care about such details, not
> > just in the database, but also in our collections generally.
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 15:19 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > > > I guess that leads to a question what is normalized and what is
> not? Is
> > > > changing "Piano Concerto", "Klavierkonzert" or "Klavírny koncert"
> t
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 18:48 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > So which titles should we use? The title of the first release? What if
> > it was wrong? What if it was so old it never got entered in MB? The
> > title of
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 7:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo
wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
include the WorkName in the Tra
Andrew Conkling wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> I didn't say I have them, only that I have seen them.
Yes you did: "I can go to my library and see dozens
like you describe"
Local library, not Brian's own personal one. That
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:44:09AM -0800, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
> A nicely-written page!
I didn't write it, from the edit history it looks like most of it is by bogdanb.
> I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "Japanese release", though. Do you
> mean "Japanese-language release, where ReleaseTit
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In short, they're the cheap classical that isn't normally stocked in
> the "good classical record shops" (I miss the good one of those I had
> in Baltimore!)
>
Next time you're coming to Philadelphia, let me know and
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > I didn't say I have them, only that I have seen them.
>
> Yes you did: "I can go to my library and see dozens
> like you describe"
Local library, not Brian's own personal one. That tripped me u
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 15:19 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > > > I guess that leads to a question what is normalized and what is
> not? Is
> > > > changing "Piano Concerto", "Klavierkonzert" or "Klavírny koncert"
> to
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 15:19 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > > I guess that leads to a question what is normalized and what is not? Is
> > > changing "Piano Concerto", "Klavierkonzert" or "Klavírny koncert" to
> > > "Concerto for Piano" really just normalization? Why should we prefer the
> >
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Now of course I believe you when you say you have dozens of these
releases, but it does make me wonder, because they sure aren't easy to
find in my sources (which are primarily two good classical record shops
in Oslo and www.mdt.co.uk, but I have a compulsory nature, s
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> b) is simply "Allegro"?
Show me one release where a track is identified as "Allegro", without
mentioning "Symphony No. XY" and the composer's name on the front cover.
> c) is in multiple languages, or the same release has been reissued
> multiple times with differ
> Now of course I believe you when you say you have dozens of these
> releases, but it does make me wonder, because they sure aren't easy to
> find in my sources (which are primarily two good classical record shops
> in Oslo and www.mdt.co.uk, but I have a compulsory nature, so I'll trawl
> an
> > I guess that leads to a question what is normalized and what is not? Is
> > changing "Piano Concerto", "Klavierkonzert" or "Klavírny koncert" to
> > "Concerto for Piano" really just normalization? Why should we prefer the
> > English title on a German release?
The problem here is you're as
On 26-Feb-08, at 3:07 PM, symphonick wrote:
2008/2/26, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 18:48 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
[snip] A track name should always
contain the normalized work name followed by the normalized movement
name. Exactly what MB does in other mu
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on your
> > CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
> > include the WorkName in the TrackTitles".
> >
> > Are you mea
2008/2/26, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 18:48 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > [snip] A track name should always
> > contain the normalized work name followed by the normalized movement
> > name. Exactly what MB does in other musical domains. We only took our
> >
On 26-Feb-08, at 7:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
include the WorkName in the Tr
On 26-Feb-08, at 11:23 AM, symphonick wrote:
2008/2/26, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with Aaron. I think he means you
can't,
practically speaking, just say "Allegro con brio" for track 1
without the
work title. He's saying the work title, e.g. "Sympho
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kuno:
>
> A nicely-written page!
>
> I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "Japanese release", though. Do you
> mean "Japanese-language release, where ReleaseTitle and TrackTitles have
> some English language text
Kuno:
A nicely-written page!
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "Japanese release", though. Do you
mean "Japanese-language release, where ReleaseTitle and TrackTitles have
some English language text mixed in with Japanese language text", or
"releases intended primarily for the Japan market
2008/2/26, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Any WikiGod around with some answers? :-]
err yeah, if you are just a WikiJanitor, your opinion is still valuable :p.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.music
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> I didn't mean in MB, I meant the actual releases. Do you have the CDs
> and can you confirm that for example the last one has on other info on
> the cover/liner notes?
>
Ah, I understand. No, I don't have any offhand, but I've seen them. I don't
own any music of t
Any WikiGod around with some answers? :-]
What to do with CategoryTerminology?
It has grown up to the point it's pretty unmanageable.
Fact is we do have a lot of Terminology, and that's fine.
Now (for example), does the stuff from CategoryIdentifier really
belong into Terminology? What's the valu
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Brian Schweitzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> classical editors - we tend to actually care about such details, not
> just in the database, but also in our collections generally.
Is that really because all classical listeners are into incredible
detail, or is it p
The page was (slightly) edited again following a parallel discussion on #users.
Diff is here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameArtistWithDifferentNames?action=diff&rev2=7&rev1=5
This again is just repeating our current policy as stated in
ArtistAlias, so this shouldn't cause an uproar :-]
Still, g
> > I didn't mean in MB, I meant the actual releases. Do you have the CDs
> > and can you confirm that for example the last one has on other info on
> > the cover/liner notes?
> >
>
> Ah, I understand. No, I don't have any offhand, but I've seen them. I don't
> own any music of that quality.
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 18:48 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> So which titles should we use? The title of the first release? What if
> it was wrong? What if it was so old it never got entered in MB? The
> title of the last release? No good, these are often budget releases,
> simplified or complete
> > b) is simply "Allegro"?
>
> Show me one release where a track is identified as "Allegro", without
> mentioning "Symphony No. XY" and the composer's name on the front cover.
>
> > c) is in multiple languages, or the same release has been reissued
> > multiple times with different liners? (v
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All I'm saying is that this, in my opinion, isn't going to work. Tracks
> have context (release), and in different contexts they have different
> titles even if they represent the same music (see e.g. soundtracks vs.
> so
>
> I haven't read your sandbox CSG proposal; where is it?
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox
Brian
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Fixed:
- track times thing
- "featured" thing
- different recording thing
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=11&rev1=9
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, (mainly of application for those of us who do deal with
> > bootlegs), I suggest adding one item under when not to merge:
> >
> > * When two releases are of the same event, but are from different
> > master recordings
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 11:36 -0500, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > Show me one release where a track is identified as "Allegro",
> >
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 11:36 -0500, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Show me one release where a track is identified as "Allegro",
> without
> mentioning "Symphony No. XY" and the composer's name on the
>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Show me one release where a track is identified as "Allegro", without
> mentioning "Symphony No. XY" and the composer's name on the front cover.
>
http://musicbrainz.org/album/24bb6985-c65e-4e46-a0cb-6daacce5a28f.html
h
My apologies by th way for the subject line switch in that message, it
was unintentional. :)
> Examples? Mozart with the annoying catalogue changes is probably the worst.
Actually, I personally think Chopin's the woest, with 4 entirely
unrelated catalogs being used. :D
> > Someone reread all
2008/2/26, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with Aaron. I think he means you can't,
> practically speaking, just say "Allegro con brio" for track 1 without the
> work title. He's saying the work title, e.g. "Symphony No. 3" is important
> to identify the indivi
2008/2/26, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Updated.
> >
> > Full diff here:
> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=4
>
> Just a few nits:
>
> "they may not be trusted up to 10 seconds differences" "track times
> differences in the range of +/-
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 10:49 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 07:36 -0500, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > > I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger
> > > work
> > > but also the individual "movements" of those works. Classical "songs"
> > > don't have "t
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone reread all the CSG documents in the wiki, forums, tickets,
> edit decisions, mailing lists, etc., as I have done. Then reread the
> sandbox CSG proposal I've been working on. Tell me how it's not the
> same
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> luks, you have *far* more optimism than I about "Except
> for random semi-classical compilations, classical releases usually
> have enough data in liner notes to identify which works they contain."
> luks, it just isn
> Updated.
>
> Full diff here:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=4
Just a few nits:
"they may not be trusted up to 10 seconds differences" "track times
differences in the range of +/- 10 seconds"
- I always thought we were using +/- 5 seconds; a 20 secon
> On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 07:36 -0500, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> > I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger
> > work
> > but also the individual "movements" of those works. Classical "songs"
> > don't have "titles", unless you consider common names like "Eroica" a
> > title.
Aaron said:
> From my experience with Beethoven's list, I'm pretty confident that
> the majority of the titles and the most common works have nice, clean,
> orderly titles that don't have "too much information". In fact, they
> look very similar to what we're entering now (see Beethoven's
Ag
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26/02/2008, Philipp Wolfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Sentenced album "North From Here"
> > (http://musicbrainz.org/release/d1295a51-2438-4bcb-a9a7-6eff85f243c6.html)
> > was just re-issued as a two CD set, the f
+ alternative titles for tracks
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=9&rev1=8
Sorry for the spam :]
I should be done with completing the draft now.
Waiting for possibly more comments before moving this to its place and stuff.
_
+ words about BoxSets (in the line of our current BoxSet rules) and
editions with BonusDisc.
Not specially controversial given our previous policy (eg: BoxSet),
but maybe emphasizing a bit more the fact that this does apply only to
"bundles" (yeah, you got the idea :]), not to anthology boxsets an
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Updated.
>
> Full diff here:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=4
>
> Mainly:
> - stronger statement about remasters
> - note about promo copies
> - note about "What if one of the edition h
Updated.
Full diff here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=4
Mainly:
- stronger statement about remasters
- note about promo copies
- note about "What if one of the edition has different/additional
AdvancedRelationships that don't apply to the other editions?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:04 AM, symphonick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/26, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger work
> > but also the individual "movements" of those works. Classical "songs"
> > don't have "titles", unless y
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Remasters: avoiding proposing any real solution was on purpose
> (call me a sissy :]) - I'll try to be more bold before the RFV and
> eventually word that in a stronger manner (eg: merge, most time).
>
I don't think you hav
2008/2/26, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger work
> but also the individual "movements" of those works. Classical "songs"
> don't have "titles", unless you consider common names like "Eroica" a
> title.
>
Wha? A title of a song is no
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Let me have a short go at it then: "If there is only one work on your
> CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
> include the WorkName in the TrackTitles".
>
Are you meaning this as a suggestion
On 26/02/2008, Philipp Wolfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hence, for now, as this may be more heavily discussed, here is a *raw*
> > draft of it (without the wiki bells, doc sugar and polish it will
> > require late
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 07:36 -0500, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger
> work
> but also the individual "movements" of those works. Classical "songs"
> don't have "titles", unless you consider common names like "Eroica" a
> title.
I wasn't w
That contains two issues IMO.
First is related to BoxSet stuff, which I don't want to cover yet.
The other indeed shows that *careful* maniac :] editors can definitely
make a case for splitting. It's just not the majority of the specy.
Specifically:
2008/2/26, Philipp Wolfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/2/26, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 26-Feb-08, at 3:20 AM, Lauri Watts wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The feeling I get from your post, Lauri, is that we may as well throw
> >> away the ClassicalStyleGuide an
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hence, for now, as this may be more heavily discussed, here is a *raw*
> draft of it (without the wiki bells, doc sugar and polish it will
> require later on):
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft
>
> Please b
On 26-Feb-08, at 3:20 AM, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The feeling I get from your post, Lauri, is that we may as well throw
away the ClassicalStyleGuide and replace it with 'Just copy your
liner
notes'. If we just wanted to
Please note I changed slightly the section about groups since this RFV
started, as to mention legally forced group renames (as mentioned in
ArtistAlias).
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.
Thanks for your comments, all.
Summing-up the various points raised so far:
1. BoxSetStyle: I'll give it a shot (either just link to BoxSet style,
or clean this one up as well), and possibly set this to a different
discussion (as I believe this one really will be argued)
2. Remasters: avoiding pro
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Olivier wrote:
> > This proposal, though, might prove a little more controversial than
> > the previous (almost harmless) SameArtistWithDifferentNames,
> > specifically because we had so little written guidance about the
>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The feeling I get from your post, Lauri, is that we may as well throw
> away the ClassicalStyleGuide and replace it with 'Just copy your liner
> notes'. If we just wanted to copy liner notes then we wouldn't need
> th
On 25-Feb-08, at 7:36 PM, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Brian Schweitzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I can be forgiven replying to all three at the same, I think they
boil down to the same thing:
These all then seem to argue for eliminating CSG. CSG by it's very
nat
87 matches
Mail list logo
